[Mike Caldera]: welcome to this special meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call and then we'll get started. Jamie Thompson. Present. Jim Tirani. Present. Andre LaRue.
[Andre Leroux]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Yvette Velez. Present. Chris D'Avetta. Present. Mary Lee. I think he's planning on joining, but may not be here yet. Mike Caldera present to the quorum. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: On March 29th, 2023, Governor Haley signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which, among other things, extends to temporary provisions pertaining to the opening of the meeting on March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at the meeting location. and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language is documenting substantive changes to the open meeting law and extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Thank you, Dennis. Can you read the first matter, please?
[Mike Caldera]: 970 Fellsway, case 40U-2023-01,
[Denis MacDougall]: continue from a night. The resumption of consideration of the petition of the idea fells we'll see the Davis companies for a comprehensive permit pursuant to that just generalize chapter 40 B for multifamily 6 story apartment development. Look at an approximately 3.4 acres when it meant to be felt like property ID 7 dash 2 dash 10. This proposal will be developed as approximately 289 units, consisting of 278 units of multifamily housing and 11 townhomes with 73, 25% of the total units of them being designated as affordable housing to low or moderate income households. This hearing will discuss the draft decision and conditions.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you, Dennis. All right, folks, this is a long-running hearing. It's been ongoing since November of last year. The board, over the course of multiple sessions, has heard about the architecture, the civil engineering, the traffic for this project, and it's been multiple iterations. As Dennis mentioned, the intention for today's meeting is we're going to be focused on reviewing a draft decision, especially the proposed conditions, as well as reviewing the updated waiver list from the proponent of this project. So this is the second to last of the scheduled hearings on this matter, or sessions of the hearing on this matter. And so that will be the focus. We will take public comment on the proposed conditions and the waivers. And yes, we do not intend to vote today. So the proponent did, I believe, receive a draft of the decision recently, but hasn't had time to fully review it. And so one of the things we'll cover in the next hearing is any additional responses or feedback before the board intends to vote. So that's the plan for today. I'm planning to kick it off with the draft decision, but before I do that, I just want to check in with Pat Noon for the proponent to see if there's any other requests or suggestions before we get started.
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: I'm Mr. Chair, members of the board. Thank you again for having us this evening. I don't have anything specific to address prior to getting into what you discussed.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful. All right, great. So we have Attorney Haverty here who will be walking us through the proposed conditions in the decision. Dennis intends to screen share that document. There are aspects of the decision that go beyond the conditions, but the conditions are a salient part of the decision. So that's where we're going to be focusing our time today. The board does get a chance to review the other aspects before we make it official. Yeah, with that being said, Dennis, if you could get the version that Cliff updated up in screen sharing, then we can go through the conditions section by section. We'll start at the section level. Attorney Haverty will provide some details to the board, and then we'll zoom in on particular conditions as needed. It's a long document, so we won't be reading through it line by line verbatim in today's hearing. Great. You can see that. Thank you. So conditions start a few pages down.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: So Mr. Chair, did you want me to just run through sort of the earlier sections and just give a quick description?
[Mike Caldera]: Sure, yeah, actually, I think that's a good idea. So yeah, if you could just kind of talk section by section what these are each about, that would be helpful.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Right, so the first section just lays out the procedural history, when the application was filed, the safe harbor process that The board went through with the applicant and the housing appeals committee when the matter was remanded back to the board. There are some blanks in here where I was looking for some information from the staff. I did get an email just before the hearing started, but I hadn't had the opportunity to review that and fill in these blanks, but those will be filled in. It lays out who the applicant's team was, who the board used for peer review, and just sort of gives a sense as to what exactly happened during the course of the public hearing. One thing I want the board to take a look at is the Paragraph number 14, which lists the board members and notes that all of them were attended all of the meetings during the public hearing process. If that is not correct, just let me know so that I can make note. If anybody availed themselves of the Mullen rule exemption, we would want to note that as well. So then the second section is the jurisdictional findings. So the way Chapter 40B works, you have to meet specific jurisdictional requirements in order to be eligible to move forward on a comprehensive permit application. So the first one is that the, finds that the applicant is a limited liability company, which really is a pretty simple process in which it just agrees to limit its return on profit. The 2nd, 1 is the determination that the applicant submitted a copy of a project eligibility letter from a qualifying subsidizing agency. The 3rd is that the applicant has the requisite site control by virtue of the quick claim deed that it submitted with its application. And then finally, that the applicant has agreed to execute a regulatory agreement limiting its annual distributions. The next section goes into the statutory minima set forth in the statute, and the safe harbor process. It notes the fact that the The city engaged in that safe harbor process and that it reserves its rights regarding any appeals of the committee's interlocutory determination. So, the purpose of that is the safe harbor process that the board undertook regarding its safe harbor claim. ended at the Housing Appeals Committee level with their interlocutory decision, the board didn't have any right to take an appeal of that determination at that time. It requires the matter to go back to the board, complete its hearing process, and then the board needs to reiterate its claim if and when an appeal is filed with the Housing Appeals Committee. So I just wanted to make sure I noted that in the decision and reserved the board's rights. I did go through the other safe harbors, noting that the town does not qualify for any of them and did not assert any claims under them. So then the next section is factual findings. So this is just findings specific to the application submitted by the developer. And then the next section is the conditions. So starting on page... six is the conditions subsection a general conditions so these are a list of conditions that are typical standard conditions on any chapter 40b development they list out the plans that will ultimately be the approved plans presuming that the board just decides to grant an approval of this development and i think it would be helpful for me to note that i have drafted this decision With the presumption that the board is going to approve the project with the conditions, you know, as set forth, but of course, the board is. Has the right to make whatever determination it makes. These are only suggestions. It's not binding you in any way, shape or form. So, I've got a list of the, the. Plans that were included with the original application. There have been revisions throughout this process, and I will be looking for the applicants to provide details with regards to what the actual approved plans will be. So, going just through these, you know, it's sort of setting forth the. number of stories, the maximum heights, all of which is information I'm looking to get either from the applicant or from staff. Then there are some conditions in here that discuss submittal of final plans, transfer of the comprehensive permit, provisions of the comprehensive permit decision binding upon successes and assigns, All sidewalks, driveways, roads, and utilities to remain private. I did have a question in the end of paragraph A11 with regards to the public sidewalks. I'm looking for a response on that. Section B is affordability.
[Mike Caldera]: section A, I think it would probably logically live in 11. So there was this question raised at a prior hearing about the status of easements for the shared driveway, I guess you'd call it, on the east side of the building between the building and the the storage facility, so is that something that would need to be added here? Like a requirement over an easement for access?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: I'm pretty sure in the transportation conditions that we got from your peer review consultant that that's addressed there.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. I see Director Hunt has her hand raised as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, I was actually just looking at that item 11 as well and its weight worded very strongly about that the city should so I understand that the city does not want responsibility for these sidewalks, but the way it's worded seems to take that off the table. Like if in the future the city actually wanted to take control of the sidewalks, it seems to be worded in such a way that would actually prohibit that. Is that in fact true? And why is it worded so strongly?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Well, it's worded strongly to prevent an applicant from coming back to the city and trying to request that the city take ownership of sidewalks and interior roadways and things of that nature. It's designed to discourage that. It would not prohibit the town of its own volition from taking that. That's not something that a comprehensive permit decision can do. It wouldn't have that authority. That being said, we can soften this language if you think that that makes sense.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, I just, I sort of wanted to protect the city's future rights. Sure. And I will just, since I'm speaking in this moment on this item, the question about the public sidewalks along Myrtle, or the sidewalks along Myrtle Street is one that we should run by the DPW commissioner. I suspect that actually the city would prefer to have those, but I would not presume to speak for him. I'd like to actually ask him.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. And so Dennis, you'll make sure we have an answer to that by Tuesday. Okay, great. Got a thumbs up.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: So section B is affordability. These are all very standard conditions. Requires 25% of the units to be affordable. Requires units to be restricted for rent to households earning no more than the maximum income as determined by EOHLC or any substitute subsidizing agency. Addresses certification reports from affordability monitoring agents, the execution of the regulatory agreement, the submittal of the affirmative fair housing marketing plan. There is language in here addressing local preference. And I guess I did want to get the board sense as to whether or not it wanted to include this condition that would allow up to 70% of the units to be reserved for a local preference category. I've had some boards that have represented in the past be less enthusiastic about such a provision. And I've had some, you know, that are very strongly insisted on it. It's really up to you.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So for that one, um, Director Hunt, I know in a prior hearing, I forget if it was you or a member of your staff mentioned that the city does typically seek local preference where appropriate for projects like this. And that I know that the actual kind of evidentiary basis for justifying local preference is more of a subsidizing agency thing. But could you just maybe speak to the city's position on whether there should be a local preference condition here?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, we prefer local preference and we have standard language that we send to the state every time about the need for that. And we have always had it approved since we've been sending it for the past four years without any issues. So we're happy to provide that, but yes, it is absolutely our preference to have local preference.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: It's going to be the city's responsibility to submit that language to the subsidizing agency during the final approval process so that you get to assert it. Ultimately, it's the subsidizing agency that gets to determine if and what percentage of local preference will be applicable.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, and our housing planner and our office is familiar with that process. Dennis have just make a note that she's aware that that's necessary with this, even though it's a 40 day that it's still on her. Great, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: So then on this one, what I'm going to suggest to the board is. I intend for us to go through all these conditions will hear public comment and then the board can discuss any, you know, conditions that were sort of this like more of a board choice versus a standard thing if they're leaning a certain direction or missing conditions, so we'll do that all after we've gone through them all. So just if you have a strong preference one way or the other on this one, especially if you would prefer not to have this condition, we can discuss that at the end.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: All right, so the next section is section C, submission requirements. So these are all of the materials that the applicant is going to have to submit to the board prior to commencement of construction. So, as the board is aware, under chapter 40B, an applicant is only required to submit preliminary plans. when they seek a comprehensive permit and the board only gets those preliminary plans prior to issuing a comprehensive permit. So, you need to cover yourself and make sure that you're addressing the submittals after the permit has been issued. So, C1 talks about submittals prior to any construction or site development activities, which includes if the City would generally require it that the applicant fund a peer review consultant to review final plans. Requires submittal of a NIPIDES permit if applicable. And then in subsection C, it talks about the review and administrative approval of final engineering drawings and plans. So those are the final plans that the applicant has to submit. That's the actual detailed construction plans. It's also the final plans that are going to serve for review by any local board or staff that would generally review for other permits and approvals. So for instance, and we had a discussion earlier this afternoon where we were talking about DPW review and approval of sidewalk construction standards. The applicant is going to have to submit final plans. Those final plans are going to have to be reviewed by the DPW, by, you know, the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, whatever the local board would generally review those sort of plans and implement their permitting requirements to the extent that they're not waived under this comprehensive permit. And any waivers, you know, are going to be very specific. They're not going to be blanket waivers. So that's what the final plan review purpose is. Subsection D talks about the middle of a landscaping plan, and the board and the city staff can review this. This is sort of a standard landscaping plan review that I've included in dozens of comprehensive permit decisions. But if you've got different language that you want to include, then that's certainly your purview. includes the requirement for a submittal of a construction mitigation plan, addressing dust control, fill delivery schedules, stockpiling areas, and things of that nature. Final plans in subsection F shall include all the various changes that have occurred during the hearing process. Subsection G final plan shall show designated snow storage areas, and that's going to come up multiple actual different spots in this decision. Provide notification to the Medford assessor's office for address and unit numbering. And then section C2 is submittals that are required before the issuance of building permits, which includes evidence of recording of the comprehensive permit decision with a registry of deeds, evidence of final approval from the subsidizing agency, and that's something I should probably get into a little more detail. As you're aware, at the beginning of the process, the applicant is required to get a project eligibility letter from a qualifying subsidizing agency. In order to move forward and actually commence construction, they've got to get final approval from that subsidizing agency. And that final approval includes all of the programmatic materials that the subsidizing agency has jurisdiction over, such as the execution of the regulatory agreement, the monitoring services agreement, review and approval of the affirmative fair housing marketing plan, and a number of other similar matters, all of which have to be completed before the town is actually eligible to count these units on their subsidized housing inventory. So you want to make sure that you've got evidence that the final approval has been issued prior to the issuance of building permits. There's some language in here about automatic sprinkler systems and showing plans confirming that that's complied with. Obtain and file with the building commissioner a copy of all required federal, state, and other local permits. Obtain all other necessary building, electrical, plumbing, and associated permits required to begin construction of the project as required by state law. And then in parentheses, it's understood compliance with this requirement as part of the building permit process. rather than required prior to the issuance of building permits. I've actually had an applicant complain about this particular decision because they said, how can we get necessary electrical plumbing and associated permits before we get building permits when it's part of the building permit process? So there are a number of other specific requirements of things that have to be done prior to the issuance of building permits, all of which are pretty standard. Subsection D, construction completion, certificate of occupancy, so this details submittals that are required before a certificate of occupancy can issue. I don't think we need to cover them in too much detail. And then Section E, project design and construction. So this gets into more of the specific details of how the project's going to be addressed. E2 requires a construction management plan be submitted. And E1 requires a pre-construction conference with representatives of the Medford fire department, department of public works, building commissioner, and other city staff and consultants as may be determined. And it also requires a meeting open to all members of the public. to review the construction schedule, hours, policies, procedures, and other neighborhood impacts. And that has to be done at least 14 days prior to the start of construction. All right, so I see an E9 that, I think this is Cliff, that has made these suggested changes. The applicant shall incorporate equipment for electric heating, cooling, and domestic hot water generation for the project and all electric building, as well as rooftop solar array designed to generate electricity or supplement domestic hot water generation. So that was a helpful change. E14, there's some blanks in there, and I think that getting some feedback, and I may already have received it from staff, but I haven't had the opportunity to review it yet, but this addresses the hours of construction. And, I'm sorry, go ahead.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Attorney Haverty, so the former building commissioner in the last 40B hearing we did, I vaguely recall he had some strong opinions about language on hours of operation if i'm remembering correctly the it has to do with who's going to enforce violations whether it be building department or police so is that something you could speak to so i see you're recommending that the hours be consistent with the hours applicable to non-40B developments in the city, but just for the board's understanding, and this is something we can check with the current building commissioner, in the event that there were some report of violations of the permitted hours and days, that enforcement action would go through the building commissioner, is that correct?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: That is correct. So this is ultimately a zoning permit. Any violation of this permit goes through the standard zoning enforcement process, which begins with enforcement by the zoning enforcement officer. If the applicant disagrees with the zoning enforcement officer, or if there is an abutter seeking zoning enforcement that the zoning enforcement officer chooses not to enforce, appeals of those decisions come to the Board of Appeals in the standard form.
[Mike Caldera]: And so in the absence of such a condition that expressly stated that ours would, and if there weren't a waiver to the contrary, then it would just be governed by the city ordinance on this. Is that right?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Correct. And this condition should be consistent. with the city ordinance. The board is not allowed to treat a subsidized housing project differently than an unsubsidized housing project. So the hours of operation should be exactly the same for this as any other construction project in town, in city, sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, but so the advantage of codifying this in a condition rather than falling back to the ordinance would be that in the event that there was a violation and a disagreement, it would ultimately come back to the board. So it's sort of reserving board discretion to arbitrate any disagreement on this matter?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Is that- Well, one way or the other, an appeal would come to the board. The advantage of actually setting forth the hours of operation in your decision is that it's there. You don't have to look in multiple different sources to try to figure out what can and cannot be done with this. It's all in one decision, which is why it's as comprehensive as it is. We haven't even gotten to the waivers and we're already at 31 pages. There's a lot of information in here, but it helps to have it all in one document rather than having to search through and try to figure out what exactly is the applicable rule.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you. Mr. Haverty, just a question or a minor comment. Sure. Sorry if it's already in there and I didn't notice it, but could you explicitly reference the Medford Health Department as well? Because I think they're responsible for noise, air quality, and things like that. So I think like rodent control and et cetera.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, I can absolutely add that.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Welcome. Okay. So, actually, there's, you know, there's a condition E17 that talks about dumpsters serving the project. I could probably get something in there about the health department in that condition. There's also a condition addressing noise and requirements to comply with the DEP noise policy.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and I think there was a, in the, you mentioned the pre-construction meeting. I just think that, like, the health department should be part of that. That was, I think, further up. Yep.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: All right. I had made a note and I will add that. Thank you. All right. So I'm seeing at the end of section E that there are a number of suggested conditions that Cliff has added. All rooftop equipment shall be screened so as to not be visible from any public way. Open spaces along Myrtle Street and Amaranth Avenue shall be available for use by the public. The applicant shall explore opportunities for incorporating public art into the development, e.g. murals, outdoor sculptures. Proposals shall be reviewed by, that should be the board or town staff, really depending on what the board wants to do there. And documentation for approved proposal shall be included in the documents submitted for permitting. So that should be in the final plans. Project plans shall include appropriate accommodations for future connections to the potential rail trail. I think that's also in the conditions under the transportation system that were provided by your traffic peer review consultant.
[Mike Caldera]: So so on the 30. I would love to check in with city staff if they have a recommendation on. Which department would be the logical. Reviewer of those opportunities. Maybe that's something you could speak to director on.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, similar condition and. previous 40 B. So with the language that we used in that, so I think there was something fairly similar. I just don't want to look at it now while I'm doing a screen share. But I can look that up in a minute and see what language we used in that and let you know.
[Mike Caldera]: My recollection is that one was a little bit more specific in part because of some of the additional discussions about the type of public art. So I think it referenced some local, like a local nonprofit or something of that nature. So yeah, I mean, I'm happy to discuss anything the board would like in that area, but I would like to know if it were the city reviewing rather than the board, like who would be logical to review that.
[Alicia Hunt]: So the Medford Arts Council is an appointed body of the city of Medford. So that could be, they don't really have regulatory authority over anything. They are more of a granting body, but they are artists appointed by the mayor. So it's appropriate to me.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Okay, Medford. What is that name again? Medford Arts Council.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: All right, the next section is traffic, traffic safety conditions, sidewalks. There was a significant amount of feedback from your peer review consultants. The majority of these conditions came from your peer review consultant addressing issues that were raised during the public hearing. I don't know if there's anything specific that you wanted to cover here. I do note in F9, the condition suggested was accommodations shall be provided to support telecommuting by residents of the project. And that just seemed very vague. So I didn't know if we wanted to be more specific with that.
[Mike Caldera]: So I saw in something, I don't remember if it was the final peer review letter or if it was the conditions they sent, a suggestion of a condition surrounding subsidies for commuters, but I guess telecommuting accommodations, yeah. Do we have someone from beta on who could speak to that, what the intent was there?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: That is in condition F10, I'm sorry, F9I addresses that request.
[Mike Caldera]: I do see we have Bill McGrath from data, but I also see Director Hunt has her hand raised. Director Hunt, would you like to add something?
[Alicia Hunt]: So I do want to offer to the board that we are actively talking to the Lower Mystic TMA, which is an organization that does transportation management for multifamily buildings. We are not yet at the point of saying that we there we're under discussion of should there be something that says new multifamilies should actively participate i would absolutely offer it as a resource to help with some of the tdm requirements um if there was a way to say that if the city uh participates with the lower mystic TMA that the applicant would pursue membership in that organization. I can elaborate if that's helpful, but I don't know if the board is familiar with those.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not super familiar with it. So maybe I guess maybe first we can check in with Beta. I'd just like to get to an understanding of the current proposed condition. But yeah, we could certainly talk about that further. Bill, is that something you want to speak to?
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Again, Bill McGrath with Beta Group. Unfortunately, Jeff McStudis was not able to attend tonight. So I think the condition regarding supporting telecommuting speaks to the building being equipped in public areas for the residents, having Wi-Fi, internet connections, those types of things that would support remote work. and not speaking so much to having specific designated areas for remote work or telecommuting.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, got it. So the spirit of the proposed condition is that there should be some infrastructure or shared spaces to support that in the building, and then the specific language is something we could discuss as a board. Is that fair?
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, I think that's correct. Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: I was just going to check back in with Director Hunt. I, I'm not entirely sure I followed the proposal. Was this just a thought as a, like an incentive or, or sort of like a suggestion, Hey, it'd be nice if you participated in this, or, or do you think that bringing in the expertise of that organization would be important in the development of the TDM or something else?
[Alicia Hunt]: So, so organ, so there, transportation management authorities that work in regions to help organize transportation for multifamily and other buildings and stuff. In some areas, they actually run shuttles that the multifamilies kind of buy into to help rather than each building running its own. They have a level that's called associate membership that's for buildings under development and that level they help the buildings prepare packages of information for their tenants about transportation options other than owning single vehicle occupancy cars. They also then have a further level where a building would buy into it that would help with some of these options around getting their residents onto the buses and on the T and organizing things like that, and if necessary, running area shuttles. Our vision is that there might in the future be shuttles in this area for multifamily buildings. And so it would be nice to hear that the developer would be willing to participate in something like that. But I think that at the low level of a project under development, to suggest that they could work with the lower Mystic TMA to help provide an appropriate welcome packet for this area, I think would be reasonable.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. And that's something that any project under development could do today. Would a project work in consultation with them on the TDM itself?
[Alicia Hunt]: They can help develop a TDM for a building. So that is one way of doing it. They do work with buildings on TDM planning.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, got it. Other questions from the board on this topic?
[Unidentified]: Okay, back to that.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: So the rest of the traffic conditions really detail improvements that have been, I think, discussed throughout the process and being recommended by your peer review consultants. I don't know if there's any specific one that you want to delve into here, but they're all laid out through F-16. I did have a question about F-15. which states the applicant shall provide the city of Medford with a way finding signage plan, which shall be implemented by the applicant upon approval by the city of Medford. And I just think we need to identify which board or staff is going to be reviewing and providing administrative approval of that.
[Alicia Hunt]: I guess it's me again. I'm sorry for just jumping in. So chair, the planning office would be appropriate. And in fact, the planning office is reviewing and approving all signs under our zoning ordinance at this time. So it would make sense for the same staff in the planning office to review the wayfinding signage plan.
[Mike Caldera]: For my understanding, more of a technical question. So this is a comprehensive permit. If we're not granting a waiver to the sign ordinance, that's still okay that there would be a condition in here that would essentially require an approval by a different, in this case, department?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: So it's an administrative approval. And essentially what that means is that they're reviewing and approving the final plans for consistency with the board's decision and for consistency with any local requirements that have not been waived as part of this decision.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. OK. I had a question about, I think it was F9I, so up a little bit. Yeah, so it's not just about this sub bullet, because I think similar language is used in other proposed conditions. So coordinate with the city and assess feasibility. Functionally, what does that mean? Who determines whether it's feasible and whether it happens?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: I think that's a good question. I would defer to Beta who proposed this condition.
[Mike Caldera]: Bill, is that something you could speak to?
[SPEAKER_10]: I think so. So I think this is, again, as are some of the other conditions, sort of a encouragement on the part of the applicant as part of the transportation demand management plan. to promote public access to subways, public transportation, things like that. Again, I would imagine that it would probably be coordinated between the applicant and the planning office, where the applicant would look to provide some of these passes, subsidies, things like that, UBIKE memberships, in coordination with the planning office in the city, that insofar as whatever the city may be doing now would wanna be coordinated. And so the applicant isn't acting on their own necessarily, but coordinating through whatever programs the city has now.
[Mike Caldera]: got it. Okay, so it's essentially explicitly codifying a an intention or an encouragement for conditions that for whatever reason, maybe are not entirely within the board's purview or where the board doesn't really and even the proponent doesn't really have full information as to whether it would be financially feasible to do the thing. Is that right?
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah. I don't think the project is at a point where that firm commitment could be made, certainly from a financial standpoint for the applicant.
[Mike Caldera]: Got it. OK, thank you. And this is for Attorney Aberdee. So just from a board purview standpoint, it is within the board's discretion to, if we wanted to use stronger language for a condition like this to do so, it would run the risk of a feasibility issue down the road that could then be disputed. But then with some of the other similar language conditions pertaining to the transportation improvements off the site, that would be outside of the board's discretion to outright require those. So we would need to use software language for those, is that right?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: Yeah, I think that's correct. I mean, ultimately, a copy of this draft decision has been provided to the applicant. We're going to get feedback from them at some point prior to closing the public hearing, and we'll get an idea as to whether or not they object to any of these conditions and whether they think that impacts the economic viability of the project. To the extent they don't object to them, then the conditions are good. If there is an objection, then the board has to make a determination as to whether the language is too strong or whether it needs to be softened up. Okay. Thank you. All right, so the next section, unless there's any other questions about the rest of the traffic conditions. Next section addresses police fire and emergency medical. Requires professional property management and maintenance personnel on the premises. Addresses a lot of fire concerns requiring it to be sprinkled to NFPA requirements. requiring all state building code and NFPA requirements relating to fire access and safety to be met, requires emergency backup for elevators, fire access road compliant with the fire safety code, and just a number of other specific fire safety provisions. Section H, water, sewer, and utilities, addresses installation of utility services for the project, requires submittal to the DPW with calculations to ensure that the water system has sufficient capacity to meet system demand. There's requirements regarding fire hydrant placement and the fire department review of that placement. Service size for the domestic water to be verified by the water superintendent. Water utility servicing the buildings shall be installed and tested in accordance with applicable city requirements and protocols. Fire demand shall be split into the flow needed to operate the building's fire suppression system and any additional flows required by the fire department for external firefighting and or augmenting the internal sprinkler system. Is a condition H7 had a question on with regards to the minimum diameter water main? I've got it as an 8 inch and that came from a project with buildings of similar size. But obviously, we're going to want to refer that to the water department and get their input on that. Standard condition regarding underground utilities. Applicants responsible for all trash and recycling. And fire hydrants shall remain private and maintained by the applicant. Again, that's, I'm presuming that that's what the board and the city wants, but if they want something different than that condition can be modified. Subsection I, wetlands, floodplain, environmental, civil conditions, really not as big of an issue on this project, but I've got a number of conditions to address potential concerns regarding these issues. And then there's a number of other general conditions having to do with finality of the comprehensive permit, lapse of the comprehensive permit modifications, and just standard issues and concerns. There's also conditions in here that address if the applicant does not maintain the stormwater management system and sets forth the rights of the city to go in and ensure that it is properly maintained. And ultimately it allows it to conduct emergency maintenance or repair if necessary and charge the applicant for that. And then at the end, the decision reiterates what exactly the permit is granting for the construction of 289 rental units and for the development as described above. and then record of vote. At the end of this, there will be an additional section that is going to be tracking all of the waivers. I'm still waiting for the final updated waiver list from the applicant. And once I get that, I will go through it and provide all of my suggested waiver decisions. When it comes to the waivers, I will say, similar to what I said at the beginning here, I'm going to provide suggested actions by the board as it relates to the waivers, and those actions are going to be based upon a presumption that the board intends to approve the project. Again, it does not place any obligations on the board. The board is going to make whatever determinations it believes to be appropriate. So I just want you to understand that when you see these draft waivers, that it's not telling you that you have to approve or not approve specific waivers. Those are just recommendations consistent with the feedback that I've received to date.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you, Attorney Aberdeen. My pleasure. I'll reiterate what I said earlier that I fully intend and expect for the proponent to take a look at this in greater detail and have an opportunity to provide feedback at our next session of the hearing on Tuesday. But I do want to check in with them briefly in case there's anything We heard tonight that you'd like to speak to now, especially if it's something like, you know, now requires additional discussion. It might make sense to do that today rather than Tuesday, but no expectation on my part that we do that. I'm just offering the opportunity.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Davis companies, Peter Tam from Wilson and stores. Um, and thank you for the opportunity to respond. We just recently received the draft, and I think is, as Mr. Havity and you have suggested, will will provide a careful, thorough review both for project consistency and to ensure that the owner operator and any investors and the contractor can comply with these conditions. There are, you know, we can identify a number of issues that I think we will be fully prepared to discuss on next Tuesday. And we can commit to sharing our comments with the board by Monday.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Sounds like a plan. All right, so next I want to check in with the board in terms of questions or comments on what we heard. This is a great opportunity if there's conditions that you didn't see in there that you'd like to see to talk about those. There's conditions that are in there that you would like to remove, and especially if there's something that came up over the course of the hearing that's not in the proposed conditions that the board should make a determination on, I think we should be discussing it now. So I just want to check in with members of the board on those topics.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Jamie, please go ahead. So I just, two items. The subsidized traffic, I was looking at the site that Director Hunt posted. I think that's an interesting option to ask them to be partners with that program. I think that covers some of the demand, although it doesn't look like it ties into the MBTA at all. So I think we want to group those together and we might be able to be more, a little bit more flexible subsidy aspect if they do join membership with the Lowell Mystic program. The other question I had with regards to the fire, you know in previous construction scenarios we've had conversations about the safety with the pre-sprinkling the building while it's being constructed to prevent potential fire hazards during the build. I just wanted to I know that was typically covered by the building commissioner.
[Mike Caldera]: Just want to make sure we have that conversation. Yeah, that's right. So on that second point, I believe we mentioned it in passing in an earlier hearing, but I just want to share my recollection. So the former building commissioner shared a lot of useful details. in a prior comprehensive permit hearing, which was also the wood frame construct, wood frame high rise was the term he had used, about the fire risk posed by these buildings and some historical examples of construction, a construction fire in the city of Waltham, I believe, for a similar design. And so, For that project, he had proposed, so there were two separate buildings. And he had proposed essentially sprinklering, I think, every floor as it was being built or something of the sort. And so we didn't spend a lot of time on it in this hearing. And now we have a new building commissioner. But broadly speaking, you want to discuss the safety and whether there's a need to do something similar here. Is that right?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: I think in the previous case it would be it ended up being in a meeting outside of the board meeting where the building commissioner met with the applicant, reviewed the plan as they were looking at their design and what the you know, obviously the cost, the questions of what that would look like, and I just would like to ask that that conversation happen between the building commissioner and the applicant, just based on the current building commissioner's perspective.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so the request is for the applicant to talk with the current building commissioner and ask whether the current building commissioner has any recommendations pertaining to fire safety conditions during construction for this building? Exactly. Is that something we can do? I know it's a short turnaround, but maybe it would be nice if we could have that discussion just so that the board has that info by Tuesday.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? Please. we'd be completely comfortable with a condition to that effect, that prior to the finalization of final plans, that we coordinate and incorporate into the construction plans any requirements established by the fire department in the course of construction.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. address your concern, Jamie. Okay. And then the other one, so on the, I just want to make sure I was understanding the first point. So you're, you mentioned that you would like the proponent or the applicant to explore participation in this lower mystic TMA and that if they do, that it might impact your thoughts on the amount of subsidy
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: required? Did I get that right? Correct. That program provides subsidy programs for blue bikes and travel recommendations and opportunities for rideshare and things like that. It does not cover MBTA, but I think that that's an excellent program that's in place today that could be leveraged by the applicant as part of that program. And then from a subsidies perspective, or if that subsidies item may be able to be restricted just to a conversation about what opportunities there would be, for MBTA years.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Okay. Got it. So to that end, and I'm going to mention a related topic with this. So as a member of the board, I'm contemplating conditions on that topic, participation in the lower Mystic TMA, as well as conditions pertaining some of the traffic improvements off-site that do not require coordination with DCR. So I think the DCR one, we already know that can't be a strongly worded condition. But because I'm contemplating stronger wording on each of these things, it would be great if the proponent could come to the next meeting with a position on whether they would be on board with or not conditions essentially requiring participation in the lower Mystic TMA and any of the proposed traffic improvements. I would like the board to have clarity on the applicant's position on each of these conditions, just so we know we're not spending a lot of time going back and forth on something we all agree on. But at the same time, I don't want to just assume at the outset that None of these are a possibility and just use the weak language for all of them. I'd like the board to know, you know, as of information we have today, what the applicant is and isn't willing to do in those areas. So is that something we could review on Tuesday, just so the board has clarity?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I won't speak for Mike Cantalupa or Pat Noon of the Davis Companies, but I think what you suggest is reasonable. What we've done in the past with respect to those items that are within state control, in this case, DCR, is that we would expect, and I think Van Ness has indicated that we will advance those items within DCR to the extent they're approved by DCR. So that language can be further strengthened to that effect. What we can't do is commit that DCR will approve them, right? But if they do, we will advance them and build them. And that should give the board some comfort there. With respect to subsidies, I mean, I think we all recognize the variety of different improvements with respect to transit that are being made, including our indication that with the bus stop right there, we want to improve that to the extent we can. And I think that The idea about TMA makes sense. We'll investigate it with Van Ness and be able to indicate what level of commitment we can make. All of that said, the applicant has to sort of reserve their right to assess the totality of mitigation and the costs associated with that before making an absolute commitment here that we can advance the project in an economic way. And so I guess that point is, as we all advance together, we're working in good faith with you to get to a project that can be constructed and can be successful. But we will need, and this goes to Mike and Pat, we'll need to assess sort of comprehensively at the very end of this discussion, whether or not all of this mitigation in totality is feasible.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood, thank you. Yeah, even getting to a point by the next meeting where you could indicate, you know, these are the mitigations we're most concerned about from a feasibility standpoint, I think would be helpful for the board. Will do. Okay, great. Other comments or questions from the board? All right, seeing none, chair awaits a motion to open public comment on the proposed conditions. So moved. Do we have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Beth?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. All right, public comment is now open. If you are a member of the public and you'd like to speak on the proposed conditions, you may do so now. Please raise your hand on Zoom, turn on your camera, raise your hand, and type in chat, or you can email DennisDMcDougall at Medford-MA.gov. I see a Richmond Chow. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_04]: Hi, this is Richmond Chow. I live at 128 Myrtle Street, so direct to Butter. I guess in terms of the conditions, my comment is kind of related to, I guess, the section for parking and the parking plan and whatnot. And I would just, you know, I know you've heard comments from multiple people input. So I would like to, you know, if you guys have specific conditions that I would like to see put in there, more specificity versus a plan would be submitted. Because I think there've been comments previously like, what is the cost of on-site parking? There's a concern if the parking is too high, would people just park on the neighboring streets and resident streets in a wood neighborhood? Be allowed to park on on site during certain times, you know, if there's certain conditions that I think the board might feel like is beneficial to the neighboring community. I would like to kind of put that in place upfront versus leaving it up to a general plan that might be. I don't know, undiscussed or discuss for the down the road or something like that. If there's things like that, I would like to kind of have the board put that conditions in from a traffic and parking and and, you know, if it also, if you had more concerns about telecommuting or having a shuttle. 44, you know, that that brings people from the resident to to to T stations versus, you know, having them. Wait, or, you know, things like that, so. from a condition standpoint. I have more concerns about the overall project, but I guess that's neither here. Yeah, not at this time, but.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. To that point, Attorney Haverty, could you maybe speak broadly about what is and isn't within the board's discretion in terms of conditions as it pertains to parking and trying to mitigate impact to the neighborhood?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: I think the board's purview relating to parking is a little bit broader than you might otherwise think, given the fact that they are requesting waivers of parking requirements. So in granting those waivers, it's appropriate for the board to be taking into account Ways in which you can ensure that you are not going to be having a negative impact on abutting properties. So, it's it's very fact, you know, specific in terms of what the proposed conditions would be. Any at the end of the day. You know, the board's decision, if it if all of the conditions and waiver decisions in the aggregate. render the project on economic, you leave yourself vulnerable to having that decision overturned on appeal. So you want to make sure that, you know, you're not imposing conditions that are going to have a significant detrimental economic impact on the project. But if there are conditions, you know, that you believe are necessary and appropriate, I think that's within your purview to implement them.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then just since it was given as a specific example, and I understand this is on the stronger end of the spectrum for conditions, but what about a condition surrounding the actual pricing of parking on the premise? Is that within the board's purview?
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: In terms of your You want to set what the applicant should charge for parking as part of the approval?
[Mike Caldera]: That was my understanding of the public comment. It was a question about whether the board could, as a condition, impose some restriction on the pricing of the on-premise parking.
[MCM00000760_SPEAKER_14]: I think that's going a little bit far afield. I think that you can require the applicants to submit to the board the information regarding what they plan to charge for parking. But I think that trying to actually dictate what is charged probably wouldn't be upheld if it was challenged.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. And then I'd like to, yeah, so I was gonna check in with the proponent. As I understand it, there will be a different company managing the property. So I would like to know if that's information you even have available right now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, Mr. Chairman, as we've stated and coordinated with Director Hunt and other staff throughout this hearing, the project has been designed to accommodate tenants and guests on site and not to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. So I think rather than, and there's a balance between you charge for parking separately, we've seen that as a way to sort of disincentivize folks with cars, but that might drive them into the neighborhood. So what I think we would be prepared to consider and we can work on in our draft is an additional condition that the board and Mr. Haverty can review, that would essentially require that we, in the tenants leases, that they not be eligible for any parking specific sticker or regulation that would be implemented in the future by the city. As a way to ensure that there isn't any spillover overnight parking in the neighborhoods. And that's one idea. But we would work with Mr. Hafferty and Director Hunt on the specific language. I don't think we need to get into, are you charging, are you not? There's adequate parking. We've right-sized it on the site to accommodate both the project needs and the self-storage needs.
[Mike Caldera]: Director Hunt, is there something you wanted to add on this topic?
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just checking if it was needed. We'll come up with language that we've been incorporating into some other decisions through the planning board lately of residents are not eligible for Medford resident permit parking stickers. If that is one of the conditions that the board recommends.
[Mike Caldera]: From a planning perspective, is that advisable?
[Alicia Hunt]: So the intention there is to basically say to the developer, put your money where your mouth is. Your tenants will be mad if you didn't put enough parking into this. And if you don't lean into getting people onto the T and the blue bikes, et cetera, and you'll need some visitor parking too. And it gives some teeth behind the idea. So for example, if residents of this building were to say it was built and they went tomorrow to the parking office and started asking for resident permit parking or guest permits, the parking director would be very upset and she would come to me and say, I don't have space for 800 more cars on the Medford street. How come we're letting these guys have parking permits on our streets? So this sort of gets that out in advance before the building is ever built that we all know there. So if the resident said, we're entitled to park in the street, I don't like parking in a garage. The streets couldn't handle it. There is not that space. So this is just a way of sort of codifying that and putting that up front.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Andre, please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I, you know, I think this is an area where I actually wanted to commend the applicant, because I do think it's good practice to kind of charge separately for parking as a way of reducing the overall number of cars that a project uses. I'm grateful that they're doing that. I don't know if many other projects in Medford actually have done that before. I'm also very appreciative of what Attorney Tam just said about being willing to consider a condition around limiting public parking permits in the future. I think that would be a good condition to include. One question I do have, because now I don't remember talking about it, is whether there is a number of visitor parking spots planned on site. So I'd be interested to hear about that if possible.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, my recollection is that there were some short-term parking spots designated at the front of the building, but I don't recall if we talked about longer-term visitor parking. Is that something someone can speak to?
[FGwns8hP0DA_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I can jump in on that. We in previous sessions have reviewed the site plan and parking plan, which reflected visitor parking on the site outside of the covered garage as a part of the peer review process with the beta team. I believe, I don't know if it's specifically in these conditions. I know as a comment that has come back from them and something that has been discussed as becoming one of the conditions is that a part of our final plans would include the identification of long-term and short-term visitor parking to a greater extent in our plan set.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I would endorse that. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, looks like we have another member of the public that would like to speak on this matter. Christina Katch, please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_00]: Christina Katch, 130 Myrtle Street. I had to step away briefly at the beginning of this. So before I ask my question about parking, I want to ask a question that may have already been covered, but I missed it because I had to step away. With all of these, excuse me, proposed conditions that are listed, who is it that's in charge of monitoring all those line items to make sure that they are happening as stated?
[Mike Caldera]: It's the building department is in charge of enforcing all things zoning. So you could file a complaint with the building department in the event that any of the proposed conditions are violated.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. All right, so my question, it's changed a little bit since the discussion that we just had about parking. So if my thought doesn't ring with any sense, just let me know and I'll try to rephrase it. The document E-29, it says that spaces on Myrtle and Amaranth are going to be available for use by the public. And now with the conversation we just had, I'm feeling a little turned around because as Director Hunt just said, the streets aren't going to be able to handle all those cars coming in. So now we have it as a condition that they can park on, that the public can park on Myrtle Street, even though we can't handle it. And I don't know if you already knew, but Myrtle Street is not a resident permit parking street because it's a thruway. So there's nothing stopping the residents of the housing complex from parking on Myrtle Street. They don't need to go to the town hall and get a parking permit. So if they decide that they don't want to park in the garage, and it's easier to park on Myrtle Street to get where they're going in the morning, there's nothing preventing them from doing that. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. And I personally would like to see, I think, Richmond, you also were maybe hinting at this a little bit, that I'd like to see a little bit more specificity in the language about public. public yes is us the residents and them and visitors. It just seemed a little vague and we've been bringing up the parking concern for the residents of Myrtle Street and Amaranth for a while now. So again, let me just recap because that was a lot. Myrtle Street does not have a requirement to have a resident parking sticker. So what is going to prevent your residents from figuring that out and not paying for parking and not going to the town hall to get a parking sticker because they don't need it and taking our spots on Myrtle Street for those of us who live here.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So there's a few things to unpack there, so I'll just try to go through them. I think some I have the details for, some I might need to check in with Director Hunt or others. So the document we reviewed, so before this discussion, it didn't have any language in there proposing to prevent Now and in the future, the residents of this development from seeking out parking permits, which I'll come back to that because I understand you're saying that that's not presently required. But so what we reviewed didn't have any language surrounding that. One proposal is that the board could add a condition and the applicant would be amenable to that. It says, essentially now and into the future. So if there's ever permit parking for this street, that the residents of the development would be ineligible for that, which I think was proposed as a condition intended to preserve that parking for others on the street. Now, the My understanding, which we can check with Attorney Aberdee, is that if there weren't language stating that the spaces on Myrtle and Amaranth that are partially on private property, if there wasn't any wording clarifying that they're available to non-residents of this development, which current language says the public, then technically, that would be inaccessible that the owner or maybe even property manager at any time could take those out of the supply. So I think the intention was to clarify that the area residents could use those spaces. But I take your point that currently it sounds like the street is maybe a private way, which is the case I'm familiar with where the city of Medford doesn't require permit parking. And so I want to check in with Director Hunt on that. Like, how would a street that doesn't currently have permit parking even start to have permit parking if they chose? And what role do the different residents have in getting to that point?
[Alicia Hunt]: So there's the sorry, Mister chairman, there's the current policy that has been under effect and where the traffic commission is moving. So permit parking is regulated by the traffic commission in the city of Medford, which by law is consists of the police chief, the DPW commissioner, the planning director and two residents. Um, so as such, I'm on the traffic commission. Um, If a, the way the policy has been is that if a street in Medford wanted permit parking, they would need to go to the residents of that street and collect at least 50% of the signatures and present the petition to the traffic commission saying we want permit parking on our street. Currently Medford has street by street permit parking. If you get a permit, if you live on the street, you can only park on that street and your visitors can only park on that street. This system is incredibly unwieldy and it is very dated. And so the city has been working on moving away from this policy to a zoned parking program as was recommended in the parking study that was done. There was a parking committee that looked at this citywide and made recommendations. Right now the city has just voted the commission to implement its first zone of parking zone, so that anyone in the new what's called the green line extension zone can get a permit for that they live in the zone, you get a permit to park inside the zone, you can park anywhere in the zone on any street, your visitors are still expected to park. on your street or within a block or so of the house that your visitor's permit is for. It's actually very similar to how Somerville's is handled that way, if anybody's familiar with it. We're piloting this new zone, and it is our hope that if and when more permit parking is needed in the city, in other parts of the city, that we would implement zones so that people who live around, you could park around the corner from your house, you wouldn't have to go three blocks up the same street to find parking, for example. So it is our hope. So the best of my knowledge, and I will tell you, I do not have my parking maps in front of me here, is I don't think Myrtle Street is a private way, but I could check. I actually do have to remember where to find that online. So it's really a matter of the residents asking. If a street is a private way, then the residents of that street can post no parking and arrange for towing and stuff on their street. The city has a web page on that, and I will go after I mute myself and find the link for private ways and just drop it in the chat for reference. I think that's enough information as a planning director is to put a condition in that residents of this building would not be eligible for resident permit parking and just leave it blanketly like that because there may not be permit parking on the street, but there may be in the future and that would just sort of cover it in the future.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, got it. So what I'm hearing is that, you know, presuming both roads are public ways, then it's really up to the residents to come before the commission today if they'd like to institute it now. on a public way, having language stating that it's open to the public isn't granting an extra permission. It's just sort of reinforcing that since these spots are on private property, that they remain open to the public. And so then having language stating such and a condition restricting residents from gaining permit parking in the future would protect the street, whatever and if ever that is enacted such that those spaces would be reserved for other residents. Is that right? Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I actually was able to very quickly find our list and Myrtle Street is a public way in the city of Medford.
[Mike Caldera]: What about Amarant?
[Alicia Hunt]: Let me just... Amaranth Ave is a public way.
[SPEAKER_04]: Okay, great.
[Alicia Hunt]: I can actually drop the list as well in the chat just in case anybody wants to check.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great. Well, so I know it's outside the board's purview to impose any restrictions on the residents or on the commission in terms of whether or not to request permit parking. So I think it sounds like the language clarifying that those spaces are open to the public, plus the restriction for residents of the development is about as strong as the board can get there. Cool. Thank you. Other comments from members of the public? Seeing, okay, in general, I'm hoping we'll do one comment per member, but since we don't have a lot, and I didn't say that up front, Richmond Chow, please state your name and address again for the record.
[SPEAKER_04]: Hi, this is Richmond Chow, 126 Myrtle Street. Yeah, I just wanted to FYI, there is no residential or parking in any of the neighborhoods surrounding this entire area, just because there's no development this size and there hasn't been any need.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for clarifying that. Like I was saying, the board can't really force the neighborhood to implement that within its purview. So I think if the neighborhood had a grassroots campaign to organize and make that, 50% of the residents would be sufficient pre-construction to put that in place. And then otherwise, I think the residents of the new development would also be counted in the 50%. So those seem to be the options.
[SPEAKER_04]: Got it. I also had another comment on, is there any area of possibility of adding conditions for like exterior lighting or things like that, you know, from a building standpoint that might, because it's so large.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so we glossed over it in the summary, but there is a condition on exterior lighting and the shielding and the type of lighting in there. So it's consistent with the, uh, type of lighting that was previously presented that's going to ensure, um, there isn't, um, forget the technical term, but essentially light pollution that spills onto the neighboring properties.
[SPEAKER_04]: Okay. Thank you very much.
[Mike Caldera]: Uh, Jamie, do you want to add something? It's dark sky certified. Thank you. Yep. All right. Other comments from members of the public? Seeing none, chair awaits a motion to close public comment on the proposed conditions. Do I have a second?
[Andre Leroux]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we're going to take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike, aye. Public comment is now closed on the proposed conditions. All right. So now the other item on the agenda, I believe, I don't know whether it's Attorney Tam or Attorney Gallagher, but I believe someone for the proponent intends to walk us through the updated waiver list. Is that right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think both Pat Gallagher and I will do this sort of in tandem and we'll be brief because as Paul Haverty mentioned he hasn't had an opportunity to review the updated waiver list yet so we'd expect to give him the opportunity to help refine the list and provide any clarifications to the board on Tuesday. So We can show you and kind of scroll through. We just circulated this to Attorney Haverty and to Director Hunt within the last hour. We've updated the waiver list that was requested as part of the revised submission to reflect the updated building program. And topically, I think it might make sense in five minutes or less, because you have not had the opportunity to review this, to just show you the types of waivers that we have sought and the reasons why. And then we would expect that we'll be refining this list with Attorney Haverty in the context of the overall decision for next week. I think it's important to keep in mind that these are waivers being sought from local regulation in order to construct the project. And the project, as we've reviewed with you, has been revised and refined so that it's our understanding, based on the prior discussions with the board, that the scale, location, these issues, you're really focused on the project plans. And that is what the board is reviewing and ultimately approving by granting these waivers. So I'll kind of run through them, and a couple of them go to the decision themselves. The first waiver we're seeking is from the Solar Energy System Ordinance. As we've discussed with the board, the project does not at this time involve rooftop solar. The multifamily structure is capable of accommodating rooftop solar. It's an all electric building. And that is the level of the commitment that has been made at this stage. So a waiver has been sought from the application of that provision. There is a historical preservation ordinance with a demo delay provision to the extent this old industrial building, this would apply to the removal of that building. We're seeking a waiver as well from that section of the ordinance. There is a number of technical waivers that we're seeking relating to sidewalk dimensions, street trees, And there's discretion granted in the city council with respect to. underground utilities. And so for these, we're seeking waivers to build in accordance with the plan. Obviously, on the street trees, we're dealing with in the context of a site that's fully private, that's entirely paved or impervious. And there's going to be considerably a lot new landscape and buffer relative to what's out there today. So again, this is one where quite literally, you don't want to lose the forest from the trees. We're seeking the waivers to the extent they apply. The additional provisions here are technical zoning provisions. So there is a restriction on two principal structures on the same lot. Obviously, there'll be more than one principal structure here between the townhomes and the principal multifamily building. So a waiver is being sought. Similarly, there are use requirements associated with accessory uses for which we're out of an abundance of caution seeking waivers as well. And then the bulk and dimensional requirements we've identified here. Things like yards are driven by, in many cases, by building height. And that's why you see these Um, these numbers, um, and and those, those changed as the building changed. Right? So, um, you can understand this and we can review it in the context of the site plan to the extent the board or any members of the public have questions. There are a number of other technical requirements about inner courts. In this case, the building has courtyards, and it goes to the dimensions of those. I think the courtyards that have been designed and revised in accordance with your peer review are appropriately scaled. So we're seeking waivers from the technical requirements here. There are additional yard requirements that At this late hour, I don't think we need to get into unless you'd like us to. But both side yard requirements and other dimensional requirements for accessory structures here, that it's detailed and noted as to why and how we're seeking these waivers. On parking, I think it's important to note, and this was a question that was raised both in connection with peer review by the board by members of the public and has even come up tonight. We've detailed and Vanessa has prepared. And Beda has reviewed our parking plans, including the parking demand analysis. We are seeking waiver from the technical requirements that would be required for both multifamily as well as the self-storage in the context of your ability to grant a, quote, shared parking special permit. And so that is subsumed within the comp permit and the appropriate waivers are set out here. There's also additional technical parking design requirements that are noted here, and we've noted where we need relief. Again, all of these items have been peer reviewed in terms of the adequacy, the size, the dimension, et cetera. Um, there was questions about signage. Um, there is a waiver side here, uh, with respect to the process by which, um, to, uh, obtain signage. And we can review this in detail with Mr. Havardy and ultimately with the board, you know, in connection with the plants. So a number of other waivers here. Some of these appear somewhat redundant because they come up in different sections of the ordinance. But I don't want to be, I don't want to blow through these, but if you have any questions, we can get into the details. Certainly, if not tonight, then on Tuesday. There is, we're seeking, both waivers from the application of these special residential regulations and also from the provision for development linkage fees.
[Mike Caldera]: And then we also talked about... Attorney Tam, just double checking, because I received this too, but it was recently, and this may not even be a change from the prior version. So on the linkage one, it's a waiver is requested from the process or from the fees?
[Adam Hurtubise]: This was in our original application, I believe, as well. that if you read the ordinance, we believe we're exempt from the linkage fee. And we confirm this, and we can review it with Attorney Haverty. But on a number of these, we've included them out of sort of an abundance of caution, because we don't want any ambiguity.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, that's something I'd like to come back to later tonight, because this was something we discussed at length in the prior comprehensive permit, but thank you for clarifying. We can come back to that at the end.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There are a number of processes that are subsumed by this comp permit, including site plan review to the extent it would apply, so we've noted those here. There is some other technical submittal requirements. I think we've provided a number of renderings and elevations over the course of this hearing, but we've retained this to the extent it would apply, and we haven't otherwise fulfilled it. And then I know the team from Bowler is still on, but to the extent there are questions, we've identified and sought relief from the stormwater management rules and regs as well, specifically for this particular requirement in terms of rate of runoff and how it would apply to this development and how the stormwater management system and the stormwater plan has been analyzed and submitted. So I think it's fair to say this isn't, you know, I think Attorney Haverty will have an opportunity to review this. Your peer review consultants who have had the original waiver list, this is largely consistent with the original waiver list, but it's been updated to reflect a new project plans. They'll have an opportunity to review this and we can respond to any questions that board members or members of staff or your consultants have on Tuesday evening.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. So I do want to check in with the board for questions. I am just going to preempt the linkage topic in particular just by restating, or by not restating, by stating some of the details of what was discussed in the prior comprehensive permit as it may apply here. So in the prior comprehensive permit hearing, there was a request also from that applicant to waive the linkage requirements under the ordinance. Their position was that the building was exempt. The city weighed in and had a different position that only the subsidized units were exempt under Medford's development linkage fee. So the remaining 75% units were in fact subject to the linkage fee. There was quite a bit of back and forth in that hearing. The board issued a finding asserting that, in fact, only 25% of the units were exempt from the linkage. This board is not precedent setting, so if things go that direction, we might have to have a similar consideration here. the basically where we landed just I'm sharing this in the in an effort to potentially speed up some some of the discussions is that under Medford's ordinance the just the subsidized units would be exempt unless there's something special beyond that about this project that would qualify all of the units or a greater portion of the units as exempt from the linkage, which then meant that requesting this waiver required the board, you know, to consider that So what about the project needed that waiver? And so there was some back and forth about how in that other project, there were some offsite improvements that had been agreed to, which the city treated as, I'm forgetting the technical term, but basically credits against linkage. And the board ultimately issued a condition to assert how much linkage was required for that project in light of the different improvements. So this is another project where you've been working with us as a board and adjusting the design, and there's discussion. And we're going to talk a little bit more at the next hearing about What you could or couldn't commit to in terms of offsite improvements. I think the city would take a similar position here that certain improvements that aren't really required under the the law might count as credits against this, but my understanding is that the entire project is not actually exempt from linkage. So there is some amount that in the absence of a waiver would be required under the Medford ordinance. I would have escalated this earlier if I think I had misunderstood the way it was phrased in the waiver list. So Director Hunt, is that something you could speak to?
[Alicia Hunt]: I feel like you summarize this extremely well, I'm not sure there's anything I would add on top of that unless there was something there was any confusion. And I would just want me to add.
[Andre Leroux]: So, Mr. chair and I would just add based on my recollection that the city actually. You know, so we offered the proponent credit for work done in terms of mitigation work. I think the city actually wanted, thought that more should be included in the linkage fee than what we actually agreed on. So I would say, my recollection is that the board actually gave the applicant more credit than what the city had recommended.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, thank you, Andre. There was some back and forth about whether I and I mitigations counted for that particular project, and the board was not in unanimous agreement about that condition. But yes, ultimately picked a number that was lower than I think what the city had stated. Director Hunt, please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right. As a reminder, the process that would occur in a normal situation is that the CD board would be reviewing this. The staff would take the request for credits to the appropriate department heads because it's credit against water and sewer, against roads and sidewalks, against parks and against public safety. And so we would ask each of those areas, do you agree that this is and is the amount that they say it's costing an appropriate amount? Just rather than, it's not that I sit there and say it's the right amount or the board would, but we would ask public safety, engineering, et cetera, if we felt that the credit amount was appropriate.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so I understand this is the first time the proponent's hearing this, and I don't expect you to be prepared with a detailed response, but I am trying to drive us towards ability to have alignment and sort of agreement in principle on a set of conditions by next Tuesday. And so what I think needs to happen, so clearly, Attorney Havardy is going to review the waiver list, will advise the board if, you know, He has a particular view on what is and isn't eligible. If there's a dispute about what is and isn't eligible on next Tuesday, the board can find something for the sake of moving things along and identifying the amount of the waiver even being sought. But then ultimately, it would be helpful for the board to know whether indeed the applicant is seeking waiver from the full amount or just a portion and associating, if it's a lesser than the full amount, associating that with some of the optional improvements that the applicant has agreed to make along the way, I think would help the board to understand and justify a lesser number. So I think the applicant might need some details from the city on what the actual amount of the linkage fee would be for the 75% of market rate units. Is that something we could provide to them relatively quickly?
[Alicia Hunt]: I just have to pull up the file with the numbers on it. I can do it in the next 10 minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your comments and your goal. We share your goal to reach closure on this. We do maintain, and we are familiar with the precedent here, but we do maintain that the project is exempt. Now, we, like you, want to reach closure on it, and we all know that there are a considerable number of commitments that have been made both on-site and off-site that are associated with real value, that to the extent this did apply to the market units, that credit should be given. And that includes things like the grant of an easement over private property to allow for public parking along Amaranth and Myrtle, where that's real value because that's land area that would be subject to a public easement. Things like the transportation improvements. I would suggest that to the extent some of the fairly costly off-site mitigation were to be authorized by DCR, that to the extent we get authorization to do that work and implement it, that those credits could apply and we could we could craft this in a way But our initial position, as you have to understand, is that this does not apply. But we will work with you on, you know, again, we're looking at the overall cost here of mitigation associated with the project. So we'll work with Director Hunt and Attorney Haverty in the coming days to have that discussion and try to drive home, as you've requested, what we're prepared to accept.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. That's much appreciated. And yeah, in light of that position, we'll do a check in again on Tuesday, in case your position changes, if needed, the board can, you know, review the details and make a finding about whether, you know, it does or doesn't apply. And then we can go from there. Okay, great. Thank you. And sorry, we're having that discussion now. I would have brought it up earlier had I interpreted the waiver list correctly. Okay, the other questions or comments from members of the board? Okay, seeing none. Chair awaits a motion to open public comment on the proposed waiver list. Do I have a second? Okay, I saw Jim. We're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. Okay, we are now taking public comment on the requested waiver list. If you're a member of the public, you'd like to comment on the requested waiver list, you can raise your hand on Zoom, turn on your camera, raise your hand, you can type in chat, or you could email dennisdmcdougall at Medford-MA.gov. I see a Richmond Chow. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_04]: This is Richmond Chow on 28 Myrtle Street. Obviously, this is new to the board from looking at the waiver list, so I haven't had time to look through the entire thing as well. But I guess one of my comments is, I guess I would stress to the board to actively look at the list, and a lot of it is related to the sheer size of the project, right? And I know that the team has gone through and tried to modify the project through the process, but obviously there is still. quite a bit of request for waiver in terms of the city ordinances. To Peter's comment about granting easement onto their property to allow this project to move along, I think part of his framing is not totally exact because granting the easement allows The ability for the project to remain a certain size square footage from a size overall size of the apartment building versus. Um, if the streets were still that narrow. You know, the fire fire truck requirements and all that would would cut into the overall square footage of the building he's trying to build. So. So I just wanted to get that statement out there. Although it was framed as a, I don't know, give back or a leniency to the public or the board, there are extreme benefits for granting that easement. So I think the board should focus on things that they do care about and make sure the developer is held accountable for those things. If you guys are planning to grant some legacy in these waivers.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. Yeah, so just a couple of things for public awareness. So in terms of the waiver list, Under the comprehensive permit process, generally the board always would need to grant some waivers. And the waivers fall into different categories. Some are technical, some are dimensional, some are very specific to things that aren't necessarily inherent to the project itself. And so customarily, the board could do something else. But customarily, if the waiver is required because the plans that the board has basically seen and been peer-reviewed and iterated upon still violate a dimensional requirement, that will be considered differently than waivers that kind of go beyond the scope of the project. So if the board couldn't really say, hey, these plans look good, but then we're not going to grant you the waiver required for that plan, either the plans look good or they don't look good. So I just want to make sure that the public understands that aspect. And then I don't want to speak on behalf of Attorney Tim, but if I understood him correctly, He was really focused specifically on some of the more technical elements of linkage and how under linkage, certain voluntary improvements to a project. can be treated as credits against the fee. So in this case, if the applicant had insisted that they did not want to do this and grant the easement for the parking places they could have, and then the board would have been considering a project with narrower streets with less parking and so on. So the board does, and the city would customarily do this analysis, hey, which improvements do or don't qualify for linkage credit. So I interpreted the comment through that narrower lens. I don't think it really intended to go beyond just this is something voluntary that might qualify as a linkage credit in the event that this product even requires a linkage fee. All right, I just wanted to get that out there for public awareness. Are there other comments from members of the public?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Seeing... Motion to close the public comment on the waiver list.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, we're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right. We've now closed public comment on the waiver list. That brings us to the end of the intended topics for today. So I just want to rehash my understanding of what we should expect by next meeting. So Attorney Haverty is going to review the waiver list. will come prepared on Tuesday with any feedback there. The proponent will discuss with the city this topic of linkage and credits and just try to come to the meeting on Tuesday, both with a position on whether linkage should apply to this project, and if so, what a reasonable amount would be. The Members of the board, please individually review the draft attorney have already sent. And I guess to avoid issues of deliberation, we should just send individual marked up copies to Dennis. I'd like to, you know, if you see any things that need changing, I'd like to make sure those are reflected. I feel like I'm missing one thing. There was one other thing. Andre, were you going to say something or no? OK. Oh, and just generally, the proponent will come prepared on Tuesday to let us know of the draft conditions, if there are any in particular that they would have concerns with that would like to be modified or addressed. So it seems there's at least one. I think there's a proposed condition surrounding solar, and then there's a requested waiver from solar, but I'm sure there will be others. full conditions and then just wording of certain conditions. So yeah, the intention at our Tuesday meeting is we will discuss each of these topics. This is also the planned date of the vote on the project itself and the closure of the hearing. So before we move on, I just want to check in. Are there any logistical items we should be discussing before we continue. Okay, not hearing or seeing any. Chair awaits a motion to continue this matter to Tuesday, May 21st. May 21st at 630 p.m. So moved. Do I have a second? Looks like Jim seconded. We're going to take a roll call. Jim? Aye. Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, we are continued. Thank you, folks. Have a great evening, and we'll see you in a few days. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right. Dennis, I think we've got a couple of small items on the agenda. Oh, did it happen again? Yeah. We still have quorum, so I think, right?
[Andre Leroux]: I didn't jump off this time.
[Mike Caldera]: We still have quorum. Yeah, technically. You're on mute.
[Denis MacDougall]: The only thing we have really remaining is, I think it's just approval of some meeting minutes. That's probably our, I don't think there's really anything else administrative. Basically, I'll let you know, like, whatever I get this week, and I've sent an email to, this is what I did last time too, is to Pat Gallagher with Goulston and Storrs, basically with my cell phone number. Basically, I do this, you know, when you send it, text me, and that way I'll know that it's in my inbox so I can get it to you all as pretty much to turn around as quickly as possible. Okay. And same thing with Paul Haverdale. I'll do send that to him as well just because I'll be kind of slightly unavailable Friday night into Friday morning, I mean into Saturday morning, but after that I'll be around.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Makes sense. In terms of the meeting minutes, I did have a chance to read them if others had a chance.
[Denis MacDougall]: The ones that we had were March 26th, April 11th, and April 23rd. I just posted the May 9th one in there. just this morning, so y'all haven't had a chance to look at that, but the other ones have been in for a bit. Yeah, the other ones have been in for well over a week at the latest.
[Mike Caldera]: Would anyone like to make a motion regarding those meeting minutes?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Motion to approve the meeting minutes. Give me the dates again.
[Denis MacDougall]: March 26th, April 11th.
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Motion to approve the meeting minutes for March 26th. April 11th and April 23rd.
[Mike Caldera]: Do we have a second?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Second.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, we'll take a roll call. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Beth?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, the meeting minutes are approved. I think that brings us to the end, so do I have a motion to adjourn?
[KaEkSOLEwkQ_SPEAKER_31]: Motion to adjourn. Second. Seconded.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, do another roll call. Jamie? Aye. Andre? Aye. Beth?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike? Aye. All right, we're adjourned.